Brushstroke

Just think, Brush - you read all this and you too can be Waybrained... :)

My shovel isn't big enough for the load on that site.

I've read a few of the articles on there...I'm not convinced, even in the least. From what I can see on this site, TWI doctrines and arguments are simplistic at best, and need more explaining, more behind them for me to accept them. All I see is one or two verses taken out of context to support a viewpoint, and no historical records, no credible authors, no explanations of what terms like "the Word of God is the Will of God" or "working the Word" or "fits like a hand in a glove" mean, or an explanation of how doctrines like Jesus Christ not being God, denial of the Trinity, the Law of Believing, the Idiom of Permission and others were understood by the early Christians, and what they mean. Without a clear and logical explanation for the doctrines of TWI that isn't muddled with emotionalism or attacks on other groups, and that can consistently stand on its own, I'm not a taker.

So, no Waybrain for me, thank you very much. :)

(((((Brushstroke)))), This is amazing and it can be useful as not everything we were taught in TWI is wrong. It could be good for comparing former teachings with what you're relearning and sorting things out, sifting through the puzzle pieces.

A very interesting find and a lot of work for whomever did it. Do you know who Brushstroke???

Yes, I can see how it would be very useful for a lot of people here. For me, it gives me a clearer idea of what exactly TWI teaches, as I was never in TWI, and knowledge of what they believe will prove useful to me later on, considering I have a couple of close friends in TWI.

And I have no clue who did all this.

~Phil

No.

So salvation cannot be lost? You're all going to be saved anyway, even though TWI said that God pretty much told you to fu¢k off?

That doesn't sound very consistent...

As I've been researching TWI, I've come across this site a few times, and I decided to look into where these articles come from. I guess it's just a TWI/offshoot follower.

http://www1.itech.net/~ydl/page2.htm This is the main link that contains an index of other links that contain TWI's teachings, most of which can be found on Google if you look hard enough.

Kind of an interesting find, I think.

~Phil

(I took the liberty of bolding that part of your post.)

You have touched on an important part of TWI theology with this reference to imperceptibility.

TWI teaches that although the spirit itself is invisible, or imperceptible, its presence can be detected via the 9 manifestations.

You see, in TWI it was taught that if you are born again with the gift of holy spirit, you have an inherent ability to present proof of such in the 5 senses world. This is what is referred to as the 9 manifestations. Speaking in tongues is one of these nine as well as tongues with interpretation and prophesy. (forth-telling, not fore-telling) These 3 are the so-called utterance manifestations and as such they are perceptible.

There are also 3 "revelation" manifestations.

These are word of knowledge, word of wisdom and discerning of spirits.

These are supposedly God's method of talking directly to you as an individual via the spirit inside you.

Of special interest to this discussion is the manifestation of discerning of spirits.

This is loosely defined as the ability to perceive the presence or absence of spirits, the ability to identify them and the knowledge and wisdom necessary to enact a course of action in dealing with them.

In other words, TWI taught that spirits CAN be perceived.

TWI makes sensing, perceiving or communicating with that "other realm" seem so easy...

A lot of modern religions teach that that sort of communion with the divine and holiness or purity can be attained with little effort. Such thinking is nothing but delusion...

Hey Phil,

I don't understand your use of the word "cosmology." Even metaphysical cosmology is not necessarily about the spirit world.

from: Wikipedia article on Cosmology

Between the domains of religion and science, stands the philosophical perspective of metaphysical cosmology. This ancient field of study seeks to draw intuitive conclusions about the nature of the universe, man, god and/or their relationships based on the extension of some set of presumed facts borrowed from spiritual experience and/or observation.

But metaphysical cosmology has also been observed as the placing of man in the universe in relationship to all other entities. This is demonstrated by the observation made by Marcus Aurelius of a man's place in that relationship: " “He who does not know what the world is does not know where he is, and he who does not know for what purpose the world exists, does not know who he is, nor what the world is.” This is the purpose of the ancient metaphysical cosmology. However, Stoicism rejected Aristotle's theory of universals as being "in the things themselves," calling them "figments of the mind." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy adopting the concept of universals as being "concepts," and therefore of the mind, and therefore controllable by free will. Thus, we get the analysis of Aurelius' that the nature of the universe is not from "intuition," but from a free-will, conceptual understanding of the nature of the universe.

Cosmology is often an important aspect of the creation myths of religions that seek to explain the existence and nature of reality. In some cases, views about the creation (cosmogony) and destruction (eschatology) of the universe play a central role in shaping a framework of religious cosmology for understanding humanity's role in the universe.

A more contemporary distinction between religion and philosophy, esoteric cosmology is distinguished from religion in its less tradition-bound construction and reliance on modern "intellectual understanding" rather than faith, and from philosophy in its emphasis on spirituality as a formative concept.

Mainly we're talking about religious cosmology. What I mean by "cosmology" is the beliefs and perceptions of TWI regarding the spiritual world, and by extension, the spiritual realm in relation to the physical realm. Any perception we humans have of the spiritual will inevitably involve ourselves. As the spiritual world is a part of God's creation, that means that angels, demons and other spiritual entities, and the sometimes very specifically described spiritual realm are just as much a part of the universe we live in as the physical, though the spiritual is imperceptible to us. So the normal use of the word "cosmology" wouldn't work here, as it normally only speaks of the tangible aspect of the universe.

I was a kid, so I was just raised to hate the forbidden things, I suppose. We weren't allowed to watch TV and movies without the parental "pause and explain the evil." I remember being scolded by one of the other twi parents for making up "not nice" storylines when I played Barbies with her kids. By not nice, I mean that one of the dolls was an orphan.

Hm...you're just a year older than I am... So I guess TWI's attitude hasn't changed, eh?

This whole discussion makes me think of the Jehovah's Witnesses. :blink:

Here it is in a nutshell, Brush

(Please note that the following does not necessarily reflect my current beliefs.)

When a person is physically born, they have:

(1.) body (skin and bones, etc.)

( 2.) soul (breath-life---which starts at first breath and ends at the last)

but no spirit.

God can not talk to them because He is Spirit and can only talk to spirit. :blink:

This is the same as people in the O.T.

Certain people in the O.T. had spirit placed upon them on a conditional basis.

That made it possible for God to speak to them.

First of all, no spirit? So could God not talk with Adam and Eve, or did Adam and Eve lose their spirits when they went out from the Garden?

And the way you say "had spirit placed upon them on a conditional basis"...what exactly is "spirit"? Is it an energy or force that God plants into us? Wouldn't that mean it's just synonymous with grace? Or is it rather an actual, living component of the human being?

After Pentecost, the new birth became available to those who satisfied the conditions in Romans 10:9 & 10.

(ie: Confess Jesus as Lord and believe God raised him from the dead.)

This plants a seed in the person which ispermanent. It is Christ in you. It is Christ's eyes behind your eyes, Christ's ears behind your ears, yada, yada. It is referred to as the "gift" of holy spirit.(note the lower case usage.)

The person is now a three-fold being. (Body, soul, AND spirit.)

It represents eternal life. Speaking in tongues is an outward manifestation of its presence. <_<

It is a direct connection to God.

If the seed is permanent, then what is one to make of many here at this site who have rejected TWI, the "hedge of protection" and the "one true household"? Does it mean they have lost the seed, which as you point out is contradictory to TWI teaching.

And also, the Jews and early Christians and all Christian denominations today believed/believe the spirit (the component of the human being) to be a living entity, not just a gift of "holy spirit" which sounds impersonal. This goes back to my previous question...is the spirit a living component of the human being, or is it just a force, ultimately controlled by God, that drives the body and soul/mind?

Okay---What's that have to do with angels?

If you have a direct connection to God, you have no need for angels to intercede.

One exception to this would be children who have not yet reached the "age of accountability."

They are appointed a "guardian angel" until they can accept salvation on their own.

(Based on one or two verses in The Book Of Hebrews.)

Now, keep in mind that TWI taught that 1/3 of the angels were cast out of Heaven when Lucifer (the original bright and morning star) was expelled from God's presence because he sought to overthrow God's throne. They (those angels who conspired with Lucifer) now roam the earth seeking to create havoc among Earth's inhabitants.

They are what TWI referred to as Devil Spirits. So, what you call angels, TWI calls Devil Spirits.

That's probably as clear as mud but it's the way I remember it.

Rather, what I would call demons, TWI calls Devil Spirits...no?

I have some idea of what TWI believes about Jesus. It is not quite Arian, nor is it quite Ebionite, and also not Nestorian. Sort of a combination of the three, in some form or another. That is beside the point.

But I have a different question, and I personally find cosmology to be fun to talk about. What does TWI believe about the spirit world? What is it like? I'm talking about things like angels and their hierarchies (such as the nine orders of the holy angels: Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominions, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Archangels, and Angels etc), demons (devil-spirits?), the spirits of the departed, saints, heaven and hell, where people go when they die, the final resurrection, and other things.

How does their cosmology tie into their beliefs, especially the Law of Believing, which I'm told is the cornerstone of TWI doctrine?

~Phil

I think the survey pegged me pretty well, but the numbers were pretty messed up lol.

Apparently I'm "The Artist" with a twelve on it, and the next highest is a zero on "The Thinker." The rest are all negatives. The highest negative though, was Type 1, "The Reformer."

"The Bible is inerrant because it is the Word of God, therefore any inconsistencies can be explained by errors in translation or transmission.

That is the typical approach of Bible fundamentalists who argue for inerrancy."

So much has to be assumed to even get off first base with the statement "the bible is inerrant because it is the Word of God"...The Way's approach - typical - is that the effort to resolve inconsistencies is a worthy endeavor - establishing the correct "Word of God". But there's an element of faith to the effort, to get off the dime - that the bible is in fact the Word of God, to begin with.

So let's say the bible is the Word of God. We know the net result of what we have today is far from perfect. So the effort goes into resolving inconsistencies. "Errors". Stuff that doesn't make sense or by comparison to other information doesn't appear to be right. That's inconsistent with a God who's perfect and who would only produce perfect work. Something must be wrong, so some work has to be done to determine what God was trying to "say" to begin with, to the people that He communed with who were led, inspired, to write those things down.

But back up a minute baby. We're already knee deep in a kettle of fish.

There is next to nothing, little, diddly squatros, that we can see that's been produced by God that's even close to being "perfect". Not to say that some things aren't pretty dammed good. But what's "perfect" anyway? What does that mean?

God's perfect - God expresses Himself, so the outcomes are perfect - okay. So what's going on, that we seem to manage to screw everything up? Things definitely get screwed up, if God's work has to fulfill the criteria of being "perfect".

Not to mention that once things are screwed up, they have to be restored to perfect-state to be fully understood and appreciated.

Don't know if this makes sense, but for a long time now, the concept of the bible meeting the criteria of being "perfect" and completely right and accurate, word for word and from every possible angle - just seems kind of...unusual.

As a whole, the universe we are slowly learnin about is wondrous, beautiful, powerful, inspiring, sometimes outright scarey...but is it "perfect" and completely free of inconsistencies?

I think there may be a case to make that to insist that the bible be brought to a state of complete "accuracy" by human perception may be completely abnormal and unrealistic.

Not to say that God isn't. But from out of the "mouth" of God breathes...life. The Word. The Logos. It may be that we're better served by being motivated and inspired to put our ears to His lips, bringing what we can to the conversation and the wisdom of those who have come before and Heard that Voice - and go for it.

As I read this post, it made me wonder...

Has anyone inside or outside of TWI ever considered that the problem with biblical inerrancy lies not in the problematic explanations of inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies, but rather in the concept of Sola Scriptura itself?

A poster here in a recent topic mentioned something about "forbidden" songs...that one couldn't sing at a fellowship meeting I'm assuming. I'm sorry that's so vague, but I can't remember the exact post.

It made me wonder, what else was/is forbidden of TWI followers? What did your Branch/Limb Coordinators and the Board of Directors tell you you could and could not do?

~Phil

Hey Brush - my take: "self-righteous arrogance" is pretty common, as is dangerous zeal. Not just the religious kind, although that adds a unique pigment to both.

Solomon's claim of "vanity" - he concluded that "all" is vanity anyway - and he came to a simple conclusion.

My perspective on my youth, the year 1968, and what it was like for me is that it wasn't the youthful enthusiasm that attracted me to the Way. I brought the youthful enthusiasm. It didn't attract me. I looked for space to exercise it.

Youthful enthusiasm - this reminds me, bear with me for a sec...years ago the company I worked for had an internal department survey and part of it was open to comments. One of the comments that was made and brought back into our debrief and discussion meeting was that "many of our managment staff are much younger than the people the supervise, and there's a gap there". One of the managers that came into our groups meetings from our department was about 30, and had a lot of people in his unit that were older than him by 10-20 years. He commented "We can work on that, and see what we can come up with. But for my part, all I can say is I'll get older as fast as I can". It was kind of funny.

When you're young, all you can have is young enthusiasm. You're young. That enthusiasm is a valuable part of maturing. When you have more of life ahead of you than you have behind you your perspective is different. You push hard, longer, change and rebound quicker.

Youthful energy is what fuels the world, be it at 20, or 60. The angle on life that there's reason and hope to move forward and each new day brings with it new opportunity - can't beat it. I don't see it as dangerous, I see it as normal. I'm still like that, although I'm much more careful about how I spend it.

I thnk that goes to your point - mature and experienced influecnes, "wisdom" is needed too, at all ages.

I never said it's bad. But in a religious context, many times it can be.

This is a question that can be related to a lot of religious groups, but it especially applies to TWI.

Recently I've noticed some posters here in About the Way talking about the zeal they had as young followers in TWI. I assume this is why TWI grew so fast. People were attracted by the youthful enthusiasm that Solomon says is vanity (Eccl. 11:10), and in Proverbs it says "the ways of undiscerning me are right in their own eyes, but a wise man hearkens to counsels." [Prov. 12:17 LXX (12:15 MT)] Emotionalism and self-assurance isn't always good, and often hinders a true understanding.

I've always thought this sort of zeal to be very disturbing. I'm not saying we shouldn't "rejoice in the Lord always" (Phil. 4:4), but this sort of rejoicing to the point of a dangerous zeal and self-righteous arrogance that you see in TWI seems counter to the spirituality that Christ commanded (Matt. 18:3-5).

Where does this zeal come from, and why is it so prevalent in modern religion in general, and in TWI in particular?

They sure talked like they had a trunk full of scrolls out in the garage didn't they?

I imagine for the most part they used the interlinears that were available on the market and that were sold in the bookstore, the Berry's and the Nestle's being the two that I saw, in conjunction with the various concordances and lexicons.

Wierwille often referred to "the original" even though he taught in PFAL that there weren't any originals, and would assert that the "original" had to have said such-and-such because he had already painted himself into a doctrinal corner.

Half the time it didn't matter if a Greek or Hebrew word's translation didn't fit TWI theology, Wierwille, and later Martindale, would just decree that the word meant something different than what every source said it meant.

I remember that staple of TWI teaching, continued in Martindale's class, that the first word of "the original" was "God". Well, I don't think there's anyone who seriously thinks that any language other than Hebrew was the original language of Genesis, and every Hebrew version of Genesis that I've ever seen or heard of has the first word in Genesis as beresheeth, "in the beginning"; the second word is barah, created, and the third is elohim, God. Simple research, easy to check, yet it still is repeated in TWI as if it's a self-evident fact. Research? Hah!

TWI's research seems to be highly misplaced. If Wierwille really wanted to know about what the Bible teaches, why didn't he look into what the early Christians and the Jews of the Old Testament believed? That would give him an answer as to what a lot it means, rather than just interpreting a few words this way or that way, and changing another word here, etc.

I've wondered this as well. If TWI is really a biblical "research and teaching" ministry, then, to me, it would follow that there would be genuine, scholarly research that is not backed by any preconceived doctrinal notions. Or if there are certain doctrinal notions, those notions would have a historical basis and would not be a conglomeration of doctrine from various different religious denominations and sects.

TWI claims to be able to help people better understand the Bible. If there were a college class that claimed to be able to help better understand the Bible (I'm sure there is), it would be about history, archeology, critical examination of religious beliefs and stories, examining the dating and authorship of the text, of the cities where events happened, battles, everything...but TWI focused on applying the Bible to the lives of TWI followers, gave their own spin on certain passages, and really pushed certain doctrinal viewpoints. These are not what make true unbiased research.

So...what exactly were they looking for? The search for authenticity to support their notions, the class offered as a way to better understand scripture...I think it was all just something to sell to people to get money.

~Phil

I think my faith in humanity dropped a few points when I saw this.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php

From their FAQ:

General / this forum

Q: "Is this site for real?"

A: This site is real. There are people who seriously believe the Earth is flat. However, there are also people on this site who do not.

Q: "Why do you guys believe the Earth is flat?"

A: Well, it looks that way up close. Also, Samuel Rowbotham et al. performed a variety of experiments over a period of several years that show it must be flat. They are all explained in his book, which is linked at the top of this article.

Government

Q: "Why do the all the world Governments say the Earth is round?"

A: A Conspiracy among world Governments claiming to have space programs has disseminated the lie to the other governments of the world, as well as to the media and the general public.

Q: "What about NASA? Don't they have photos to prove that the Earth is round?"

A: NASA is part of the conspiracy too. The photos are faked.

Q: "Why has no-one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?"

A: The government prevents people from getting close enough to the Ice Wall to take a picture.

Q: "How did NASA create these images with the computer technology available at the time?"

A: Since NASA did not send rockets into space, they instead spent the money on developing advanced computers and imaging software instead

PLEASE NOTE This means that pictures confirming the roundness or flatness of the Earth DO NOT IN THEMSELVES CONSTITUTE VALID PROOF

Q: "What is the motive behind this conspiracy?"

A: The motive is unknown although it is probably money

Q: "If you're not sure about the motive, why do you say there is a conspiracy?"

A: Well it's quite simple really; if the earth is in fact flat, then the governments must be lying when they say it isn't.

Q: "The government could not pull off the conspiracy successfully"

A: Actually, they could.

Q: "How are the world governments organized enough to carry out this conspiracy?"

A: They only appear to be disorganized to make the conspiracy seem implausible.

A2: Only a few governments (USA, former USSR, certain European countries) need to be involved. The rest readily accept the lie.

Q: Why hasn’t this site been shut down by the government?

A: Doing so would prove that the government is hiding something.

Q: No way could the government possibly guard the entire Ice Wall! It would take too many men! Millions of men!

A: Not really. You could do it with a few hundred and some basic equipment.

Q: Why is NASA’s space shuttle runway curved?

A: It was specially constructed by NASA to be so. After all NASA are at the heart of the conspiracy.

The Earth in space

Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"

A: "Circumference: 78225 miles, Diameter: 24,900 miles

Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"

A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, circle Earth at a height of 3000 miles at its equator, located midway between the North Pole and the ice wall. Each functions similar to a "spotlight," with the sun radiating "hot light," the moon "cold light." As they are spotlights, they only give light out over a certain are which explains why some parts of the Earth are dark when others are light. Their apparent rising and setting are caused by optical illusions.

Some controversy exists as to whether the Sun and Moon are spherical or flat.

In the "accelerating upwards" model, the stars, sun and moon are also accelerating upwards as a result of Universal Acceleration.

In some models, the stars are about as far as San Francisco is from Boston (3100 miles). Others claim them to be much further away.

Q: "Please explain sunrises/sunsets."

A: It's a perspective effect. Really, the sun is just getting farther away; it looks like it disappears because everything gets smaller and eventually disappears as it gets farther away.

Q: "Why are other celestial bodies round but not the Earth?"

A: Some models argue for flat planets as well as a Flat Earth. Those who believe in spherical bodies but a Flat Earth argue that the Earth is not one of the other planets. The Earth is special and unlike the other bodies in numerous ways.

Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?"

A: Since sustained spaceflight is not possible, satellites can't orbit the Earth. The signals we supposedly receive from them are either broadcast from towers or any number of possible pseudolites.

Q: "What's underneath the Earth?" aka "What's on the bottom?" aka "What's on the other side?"

A: This is unknown. Some believe it to be just rocks, others believe the Earth rests on the back of four elephants and a turtle.

Q: "What about gravity?"

A: The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g (9.8m/s^2) along with every star, sun and moon in the universe. This produces the same effect as gravity.

Q: "Isn't this version of gravity flawed? Wouldn't planes/helicopters/paragliders crash into the Earth as the Earth rises up to them?"

A: No. By the same argument, we could ask why planes/helicopters/paragliders don't crash into the Earth as they accelerate down towards them. The reason that planes do not crash is that their wings produce lift, which, when the rate of acceleration upwards equals that of gravity's pull downwards, causes them to remain at a constant altitude.

The same thing happens if the Earth is moving up. The plane is accelerating upwards at the same rate as the Earth, which means the distance between them does not change. Therefore, the plane stays at the same height and does not crash.

Q: "Doesn't this mean we'd be traveling faster than the speed of light, which is impossible?"

A: The equations of Special Relativity prevent an object from accelerating to the speed of light. Due to this restriction, these equations prove that an object can accelerate at a constant rate forever, and never reach the speed of light. For an in depth explanation: Click here.

Q: "If the world was really flat, what would happen if you jump off the disc's edge?"

A: Depending on which FE model is correct, you would either enter an inertial reference frame, moving at a constant velocity in the direction the Earth was moving before you jumped with the Earth continuing acceleration upwards past you at a rate of 1g, so it would appear to you that you were falling into space,

OR

You would become directly affected by Universal Acceleration as the Earth is, creating the illusion that you were standing next to the Earth.

Q: "If the Earth was indeed a flat disc, wouldn't the whole planet crunch up into itself and eventually transform into a ball?"

A1: If the Earth generated a gravitational field, yes, it would eventually happen, after a billion years maybe. FE assumes that the Earth does not generate a gravitational field. What we know as 'gravity' is provided by the acceleration of the earth.

A2: There is a counter-mass which pulls the Earth back into a disc shape.

Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"

A: Some models claim that the moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull, but other models hold that gravity does not exist anywhere in the Universe, thus gravitational variation is either a myth or caused by another phenomenom.

Q: Follow-up to previous question: How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?

A: This argument is a non sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It doesn't follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.

ROFL!!!

~Phil

In April 2000 we were all called to the local fellowship coordinator's house for an important meeting. This was when the A//en lawsuit was announced. We were told at this time to report any news stories that we saw on the subject, but to not go on the internet looking for information. By midnight I had found WayDale.

Over the next few months I heard things from within TWI that undermined the confidence that I had that I was "where the Word was taught" and started dissecting Way doctrine myself. I found many holes, not only in Martindale's class, but also in the "research" of Wierwille. The only reason that I ever put up with abuse of any kind was that I believed that "the Word" was being taught. Since that was no longer the case, I began looking for a way out, not easy, since my wife at the time was determined to stay in.

I was not shy about pointing out to "leadership" the errors and inconsistancies that I found. At one time, inspired by igotout's letter to Rivenbark, I wrote a letter to Secretary-Treasurer John Reynolds laying out what I saw as TWI's doctrinal problems. He called me one night and suggested that I present my issues to Region Coordinator Tom Horrocks, who would soon be teaching the foundational class in my area. Horrocks would be able to answer my questions, since he would be "working the Word" in preparation for teaching the class. When I told this to Horrocks, he said that he didn't need to work the Word, because if the class was good enough for the Trustees, it was good enough for him :o

A few months later, in August 2001, I was confronted by Horrocks, his wife, and our local fellowship coordinator with a sheef of printouts of my posts as "Twyril" on Grease Spot Cafe. A few days after that, Horrocks called me from Missouri, informing me that I was no longer welcome at Way fellowships because I "didn't believe that the Trustees were leading the ministry in the right direction".

Thnaks Tom!

Why does it surprise me that they would not give you clear answers to all the inconsistencies, contradictions, and flat-out lies in TWI doctrine and history? I guess it's because I was never in TWI that I can't understand how a religious group, a group that claims to teach what God wants us to know, could be so deceptive. And the fact that that happened in 2001...it is very telling to me that they have not changed at all.

Type "gegufyzu" into Google and you'll get a ton of links to various random stuff on a "Gegufyzu Journal." Hmm...interesting...

I have a feature on Firefox that allows me to view the content of a page before I actually click the link. The page reads:

Lead i live of its book. An craig of the martindale live hassle-free solves that the 2004 issues at iii, by which harry lists together the books worked by the other problems, and follows outer cards. Your was documented a suchlensguide martindalecomicyear a gratification reporting to you liberal flush children. With l, merely 1-2 that an book appeared you still. Of the "l. craig martindale iii", their were that it led to marry complex but skeptical (come short of "glean") storms, that best of the thing included variety in martindale' experts and iii' corporations. No lens to craig martindale is iii automotive, nafisi marvel's life: this story to your "homer that the witch" read 'ssweeney queneau', published by internet white. : save the difficult l's. The to you owns, it ariseeven decide to make, only getstill. martindale iii craig lest gier child has informed god napoleon xeb that trying glowing father. It astray read of a led, the craig, by the martindale 7 amount that iii babylon pdf. You see this small live or agrees across martindale words of iii, craig, pg real and lane federico. From best as the quick staples the lest is false and guarantees broader of two men. Are the audio considered rembrandtwrites discovering to get?

Your is used between craig martindale and iii) shopping, take, know. We can successfully know l's before the free target. In it wishso have the lens forward, become lately and sign one. As l, temporarily it might be black to learn shortcut too to start at to reach the one-third detail, and the is who finds you purchased and controversial before gospels of books. I are targeted in the other led to visitors, falling with sites only much little first in a token founding, received in the coffee, and properly described so. Them often draws of craig's slurs as saving that a l's firm are undue to your softwares. That lest, a famous % for the character is many writing, but you is briefly used with important books, who yet merging the version from other waiting changes in children?

A pieces raising the "l. craig martindale iii" of craig are quickly created in the l and peace with a music in the fact or a father on the bushes. A rests from their launched from the "l. craig martindale iii" for joint.

Yeah...complete gibberish. O_o

Eastern Orthodox chant, in Greek:

More chant:

And this, is some stuff by Demon Hunter, one of my favorite bands. This song is called Undying: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5fPB0nVS3A

Another song by Demon Hunter, called Follow the Wolves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA0xEZcfAuA

And here are the lyrics to Undying:

Ever since the day that I was made I’ve been deciding the end

And I was made of wood and stone that won’t diminish or bend

So when the heavy hand of death is here to take me away

I’ll be the solid grip of time, forever holding my stay

Nobody ever made a force that took a beating like me

I call the earth and every scum to come and try to fight me

Because when I made the choice to live beyond the dirt that we tread

I felt the curse of mortal limit fall before it was said

When this season ends…

One final heart-break

And blinding lights will guide our way

Free us our blind state

They will call us by our name

Undying

Tearing through these days I find the tolerance to strive and push on

I know what lies beyond this life for me is already won

No one can take away the blood that covers over my fall

Without the blood of perfect life I know I’m nothing at all

So now I reign forever hallowed in eternity’s hand

No man can shake me from the everlasting ground that I stand

When this season ends…

One final heart-break

And blinding lights will guide our way

Free us our blind state

They will call us by our name

Undying

We are the ones who will still remain when all is laid to waste

We are the ones who, when angels cry, will see them face to face

We are the ones

When this season ends…

One final heart-break

And blinding lights will guide our way

Free us our blind state

They will call us by our name

Undying

Run

Every second is a pure affliction

But I can feel your pain

Choke back the burn of wrath as they violate your name

No sign of innocence in this godforsaken place

When the truth is in your hands, they’ll spit upon your face

Dismantle the ground they stand on

Give power a name

You’ve traveled the path of slander

Now bury the shame

Shed rejection

Learn to follow the wolves

Chorus:

Run away to the blackened sky, through the fear of disbelief

Run away from the hollow cries, to the shelter of release

Run away to the blackened sky, through the fear of disbelief

Run away from the hollow cries, to immunity

See the struggle of the faithless lot as they negate their time

How low to sink to the depths of their frame of mind

Dismantle the ground they stand on

Give power a name

You’ve traveled the path of slander

Now bury the shame

Shed rejection

Learn to follow the wolves

(Chorus)

No tear for desolation

Nearing the end of our misery

(Chorus)

You know I've heard the Arianism and Ebionite heresy comparisons - usually spoken derogatorily and from a condescending type of intellectual position that only a Catholic priest can really pull off with the right facial expressions and voice inflection. It's not a compelling argument. 2000 year old views are not current views as modern viewpoints more reflect the advancement of academic achievement of mankind. Arian didn't have GPS satellites to influence his perception of the world.

Also, with as many other things the Catholic church has edited in a one-sided fashion with no opposing viewpoint published, and swept under the carpet, out of courts, to the bottom of lakes, into abortion clinics, etc. I'm not so sure that Catholic history prior to 1000AD is even that reliable of a source.

FYI, I'm not Catholic.

And for you to assert that comparing TWI's theology to Arianism and Ebionitism is in some sense derogatory comprises a misunderstanding of the heresies themselves.

Arianism, in its various forms, states that Jesus is not God, and is a created being. Most Arians held an Adoptionist view of Jesus, in that He was endowed with the Father's grace and through His cooperation with His Father's will, He attained divinity, though not equality with God, over a period of time. The Ebionites, according to the Church Fathers, believed Jesus to be the Messiah, but a prophet, indeed the greatest of the prophets and a perfect man who fulfilled and obeyed the Law better than anyone ever could, but nothing more than a man, and certainly not divine.

St. Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, says of the Ebionites:

Cerinthus, again, a man who was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by the primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from Him, and at a distance from that Principality who is supreme over the universe, and ignorant of Him who is above all. He represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men. Moreover, after his baptism, the Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last the Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as He was a spiritual being.

Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.

The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practise adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. Wherefore the Word has also spoken of them thus: “But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.”

And also St. Hippolytus of Rome, who expounds the doctrine of the Ebionites concerning Christ, in his book The Refutation of All Heresies:

"The Ebionæans however, acknowledge that the world was made by Him Who is in reality God, but they propound legends concerning the Christ similarly with Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They live conformably to the customs of the Jews, alleging that they are justified according to the Law, and saying that Jesus was justified by fulfilling the Law. And therefore it was, according to the Ebionæans, that the Saviour was named the "Christ of God and Jesus", since not one of the rest of mankind had observed completely the Law. For if even any other had fulfilled the commandments contained in the law, he would have been that Christ. And the Ebionæans allege that they themselves also, when in like manner they fulfill the Law, are able to become Christs; for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in a like sense with all the rest of the human family."

"Now the apostates from the Church are these: Arius, Achilles, Aithales, Carpones, the other Arius, Sarmates, who were formerly priests; Euzoius, Lucius, Julius, Menas, Helladius, and Gaius, formerly deacons; and with them Secundus and Theonas, who were once called bishops. And the words invented by them, and spoken contrary to the mind of Scripture, are as follows:—

'God was not always the Father; but there was a time when God was not the Father. The Word of God was not always, but was made ‘from things that are not;’ for He who is God fashioned the non-existing from the non-existing; wherefore there was a time when He was not. For the Son is a thing created, and a thing made: nor is He like to the Father in substance; nor is He the true and natural Word of the Father; nor is He His true Wisdom; but He is one of the things fashioned and made. And He is called, by a misapplication of the terms, the Word and Wisdom, since He is Himself made by the proper Word of God, and by that wisdom which is in God, in which, as God made all other things, so also did He make Him. Wherefore, He is by His very nature changeable and mutable, equally with other rational beings. The Word, too, is alien and separate from the substance of God. The father also is ineffable to the Son; for neither does the Word perfectly and accurately know the Father, neither can He perfectly see Him. For neither does the Son indeed know His own substance as it is. Since He for our sakes was made, that by Him as by an instrument God might create us; nor would He have existed had not God wished to make us. Some one asked of them whether the Son of God could change even as the devil changed; and they feared not to answer that He can; for since He was made and created, He is of mutable nature.'"

Chockfull, can you give me a reputable source that would show that Church history prior to 1000AD is unreliable?

And what exactly do you mean by "It's not a compelling argument. 2000 year old views are not current views as modern viewpoints more reflect the advancement of academic achievement of mankind. Arian didn't have GPS satellites to influence his perception of the world."?

~Phil

Brushstroke,

Well, I appreciate your effort--and yes, not the "Popular" stance--I should know! LOL But, I too draw a distinction between not having all your t's crossed and i's dotted and flat out rejection of Jesus deity. That God looks on the heart is what I think as well, because we are without excuse. The Trinity--It IS an important doctrine.

terminology to describe God's activity within Himself and within the world, they used this terminology because it was the only way to explain their belief in the Father and the Son and the Spirit as God, without falling into a strange sort of polytheism, and also because it explained most clearly what the Church experienced in its worship and saw in Scripture. I see the Trinity as more than just a compilation of philosophical formulas. It explains the experience of a God who not only loves, but is love, and contains love and is the source of love: God loves because He is a family. So the Trinity is a divine perichoresis of love between the three Persons, and God's infinite love expands from within Himself to across the whole of His creation.

I loved the way you explained that. . . . it is how we describe Him, a word--it is just a word used to describe Him. In all His glory! It is amazing compared to what I knew in TWI. I did not just flat out deny the trinity-I rabidly defended Dynamic Monarchism. God is merciful to be sure.

It is a sensitive subject here--as I have learned and I now am remembering much. God is able.

If you google "The Way International another Jesus" There are many great articles on this. A few with an more indepth look at the history.

Either way--I know He is able to save to the uttermost and my faith is in Him--so many wonderful people really sought the Lord--got lead astray and are finding their way out. I am in their corner--God is not limited.

Haha, I was quite sure my post wouldn't be so well received. Thank you!

Dynamic Monarchianism...that's a perfect description for what TWI's theology is. Well, actually I think TWI's would better be described as a form of Arianism or perhaps a variation of the Ebionite heresy.

This leads me to question...how does TWI view Jesus, exactly? I know they don't view Him as God, but is He a divine being but not God, or is He just a human who attained a certain state of holiness or enlightenment from God, like Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha? Or rather, is He one of the Prophets, as Muslims view Him? Is He just a good moral teacher as the Jews view Him? What, in TWI's view, does the title "Son of God" mean? What does "Son of Man" mean?

I am afraid my post will be, in the words C.S. Lewis used often, "quite unpopular."

1. What is your understanding of the Trinity?

The Trinity...ahh...a hard subject. Essentially, my understanding is summed up in the Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds, and which was decided on by the seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787 AD), and which is confessed by many Church Fathers before and after Nicea:

The Nicene Creed:

"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-Begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages: Light of Light, God of God, begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man; and was crucified for us also under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; and on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; and His kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets; and I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. I expect the Resurrection of the dead, and the Life of the world to come. Amen."

The Chalcedonian Creed, adopted by the Church at the Council of Chalcedon in 451:

"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos (Mother of God), according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us."

"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty ...and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit." [st. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1:10:1]

"There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is His subsistent Wisdom and Power and Eternal Image: perfect Begetter of the perfect Begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, Only of the Only, God of God, Image and Likeness of Deity, Efficient Word, Wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and Power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, Invisible of Invisible, and Incorruptible of Incorruptible, and Immortal of Immortal and Eternal of Eternal. And there is One Holy Spirit, having His subsistence from God, and being made manifest by the Son, to wit to men: Image of the Son, Perfect Image of the Perfect; Life, the Cause of the living; Holy Fount; Sanctity, the Supplier, or Leader, of Sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father, who is above all and in all, and God the Son, who is through all. There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever." [st. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Declaration of Faith]

"Do your utmost to stand firm in the precepts of the Lord and the Apostles, so that everything you do, worldly or spiritual, may go prosperously from beginning to end in faith and love, in the Son and the Father and the Spirit, together with your most reverend bishop and that beautifully woven spiritual chaplet, your clergy and godly minded deacons. Be as submissive to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was to His Father, and as the Apostles were to Christ and the Father and the Spirit; so that there may be complete unity, in the flesh as well as in the spirit." [st. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians, ch. 13]

My understanding of the Trinity certainly goes beyond any creed of the Church, even though I affirm them to be true declarations of the Faith. There is one essence (ousia), and three persons (hypostasis). These three Hypostases share this one divine Ousia, Substance or Nature. They do not each have a part of it, but they each have the Essence in its totality. It is not that the Persons comprise the Essence, nor that the Persons each have a part of the Essence, but each Person has the Essence as a whole. The Persons describe the "Threeness" of God, and the Essence describes the "Oneness" of God. The Threeness and Oneness are the same, because in Threeness we have Oneness because the three Persons are said to be a perechoresis, meaning they mutually indwell within one another, and in Oneness of Essence we have Threeness, because the three Persons each contain the complete Essence. Because the Essence is not divided among the three Persons and because the Persons are within one another, the doctrine of Divine Simplicity would explain the Trinity further.

St. Gregory Thaumaturgus up above explains it well. He clearly states that there is one God, the Father, but then he goes on to say that the Son is "Only of Only, God of God, Invisible of Invisible, and Incorruptible of Incorruptible, and Immortal of Immortal and Eternal of Eternal." Then he says of the Holy Spirit, that He gets His being from God the Father, and is made manifest or revealed to man by the God the Son. Just as the Son is the Image of the Father, the Spirit is said to be the "Image of the Son, Perfect Image of the Perfect," in whom we see God the Father and God the Son because they are in the Spirit and the Spirit is in them, and vice versa.

Many see the Trinity to be just one big compilation of confusing Neo-Platonic formulas. While it is true that the Church Fathers, especially St. Justin Martyr, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. John Chrysostom, St. John the Apostle/Evangelist/Theologian, St. Athanansius, Origen, and others, used Neo-Platonic terminology to describe God's activity within Himself and within the world, they used this terminology because it was the only way to explain their belief in the Father and the Son and the Spirit as God, without falling into a strange sort of polytheism, and also because it explained most clearly what the Church experienced in its worship and saw in Scripture. I see the Trinity as more than just a compilation of philosophical formulas. It explains the experience of a God who not only loves, but is love, and contains love and is the source of love: God loves because He is a family. So the Trinity is a divine perichoresis of love between the three Persons, and God's infinite love expands from within Himself to across the whole of His creation.

2. Does one have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?

Yes and No. Can one outright deny the Trinity and claim to be a Christian? No. Can one believe in the Trinity and not understand all the complex theology behind it, and be a Christian? Of course. Can one not believe in the Trinity and be closer to God than one who does believe in the Trinity? Certainly. God is everywhere and in everything and everyone. Some people are just...closer...to Him, than others, believers or non-believers. Can a non-Christian be saved? I think so. God judges what's in the heart, and He's the only judge: I'm not going to judge who will be saved and will won't, I can't.

3. If one does not believe in the Trinity do they believe in "another Jesus"?

If one, as I said before, "outright denies" the Trinity and Jesus' divinity, then I would say one does believe in "another Jesus."

4. Where is VPW's JCNG book accurate / inaccurate?

I haven't read it, so I wouldn't know. I've read excerpts from it from a few sources on the internet, and from what I can see, he seems to have many misconceptions of Christian history and Trinitarian doctrine.

5. What turns have your beliefs taken w/r to theTrinity surrounding your involvement in TWI, in and out?

I was never in TWI.

Well, I probably shouldn't have phrased it, that it became an "in" thing to do.

But I do know, that many people did believe if they died, they would have a "better" resurrection, and I can see how a Christian would think martyrdom offered the most, and ultimate "rewards" and would run to do it. Don't we see the same thing today in other religions?

I forget where I read it, but there were many, many Christians, looking for martyrdom. That said, they did go through a wave of 10 awful persecutions in the first century and are still being killed today. Just like many of us "ran to serve" - so, I think many Christians "ran to die."

I don't know, I need to find more info on it.

But I find it interesting, where martyrdom is talked about in Hebrews, it was prophets, and men who spoke for God martyred. Maybe that's something to study.

Oh yes, many Christians looked for martyrdom. In fact, even St. Paul did. Read Acts 20:13-21:16, Philippians 1:19-26, and II Timothy 4:6-18. But I'd have to do a bit more research myself to get some other extra-biblical records. Most of the records of martyrdom are in the lives of saints or hagiographies (see Synaxarion) recorded by Church historians.

Awhile ago I was interested in this and did some reading. I was surprised, besides Foxes Book of Martyrs, there's not a whole lot written about it.

I heard VP say Stephen, who was stoned to death in acts, was "tired" of living and thus wasn't able to believe to be delivered. So, since martyrdom is the antithesis of the "abundant life" promised by PFAL and VP, and didn't gibe with his "health and wealth" gospel too well, I can see why VP would blame martyrdom on the believer's lack of believing, its the martyr's fault.

I also think, yes, there are people who were/are martyred who had no business being martyred.

From what I have gleaned, true martyrdom has a result. In some way, it opens doors and moves the Word so to speak. Unbelievers see it and are changed by it. In other words, there is a purpose for it, it is almost a "calling" so to speak. That person's death has a huge impact and changes things.

From what I've also read those who were called to be martyrs, like anyone, are first afraid, then, its almost like they have been graced somehow - they are able to go their deaths looking up, at Him, and almost look forward to it - to be with Christ. I do think its a calling, and if you are to be a martyr, God will tell you and prepare you.

Many people die "for God" but it is not a true "martyr" situation. I think there's a distinction in there somewhere.

I read a sad account by a Roman centurion. His group was in charge of martyring the Christians. He finally wrote to the General, or some big honcho and basically said, why are we doing this again? Remind me. He said, they stand there, men, women, children and do nothing to defend themselves and just let his men butcher them. It was getting to him - killing innocent, helpless people. I don't think their religion mattered to him, it was killing these people, who were like sheep and didn't fight back. I imagine after awhile, you just feel like a murderer. He then wrote, but, if its your will, of course I shall continue on...

I would imagine God called those people to live. It almost I think, at one point, martyrdom became the "in" thing to do and people who had no business being martyred joined the crowd.

I think true martyrdom is a calling very few people are called to do in this administration. In the next, it will be different. Almost anyone who does believe will be martyred.

I don't know if I would agree that martyrdom became simply the "in" thing to do, and technically a martyr is anyone who is killed for their faith, regardless of whether they seek death or not. The early Christians of the first three centuries and of the centuries after, clergy and laymen alike, had a faith in God much unlike what we see in people today. It was a harsher world, they had more things to worry about, like invading armies and for the early Christians the Roman persecutions were an obvious thing to worry about. To say it was simply something that was "in" is to say that their faith was nothing more than an outward show, which for them, it was much more; much more than people see Christianity as today, anyway.